Was I the only person in American who votes in Democratic primaries that saw Hillary and Obama as largely unelectable? Why is this news now? Hillary's deficiencies and the hatred of her on the part of many on the right, in the center, and some on the left was well know. Likewise, Obama's "preacher problem," his Rezko problem, and his Ayers and Dorhn problem, have been well know to those in the political community and those who cared to look for since well before the first ballot was cast. All of this is why I supported John Edwards.

The only way out of this mess is for the Superdelegates to come to their senses and start a draft Gore movement. Because right now, a Gore/Edwards ticket sure sounds a lot better than anything else we're likely to get.

And the damage that will be done if we don't come to our senses will be greater than just four more year of war, four more years of Republican judges, etc. Think of the public perception that will result if the Democrats can't muster a winning response in this year. When will we ever be relevant or be able to get our act together if we can't do it now?

Re: legalization, if there is some moral force behind prostitution laws, why is it legal to give it away, but not sell it? To me, that should be the end of any argument justifying prostitution laws.

Re: the notion that the death of Ms. Palfrey was suspicious, and that perhaps her phone records are missing. While I suppose one could never absolutely rule this out, the phone records were posted on the internet for a period. I'm sure many enterprising journalists downloaded the files for future political research. In fact I download some for use in political races in Texas, although they have yet to yield any nuggets. So I doubt that there will be any loss of information, nor would there have been any great incentive to for a potential customer who know about their publication to desire Ms. Palfrey to be dead.

I agree with the officer who justifiably noted that we should focus on the main issue. But as can be seen from this string of letters, the inaccuracies do detract from many people being able to focus on the more germane points raised by the article. To many, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Likewise -- witness the post of Baby Grumpus -- these errors call into question the competence of the reporter. They are like the thirteenth chime of a clock -- something that not only discredits that utterance, but all that precede or follow. And this is unfortunate. Because the article raise many interesting issues, not the least that raised by Hatchshin: that the available technology "allow us to keep the cost in US lives relatively low and allow us to continue to project force in Iraq, but they also bind us to a strategy that cannot succeed in the long run."

The other compelling issue raise, of course, is the most compelling one: that there can be no victory in an occupation. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Electing a Republican in his place will certainly help matters. I'm sure that out of gratitude, the Republican will vote against immunity!

You people are nuts. Here's a guy who will vote for the party on at least half, maybe seventy-five percent of the issues we all care about, and you're going to sacrifice him over and admittedly very important issue, for a Republican who will vote against us 100% of the time. And as is noted in several letters, it's a SWING district -- one that would likely not elect a Democrat who votes like we liberal would like 100% of the time. Anyone who would prefer nothing to 50% of a loaf is a fool.

See if I have this right? Now that McCain has reaped the benefit of the good Rev. Hage's endorsement by getting all the crazies' votes in primary, and now that the good Reverend's endorsement could actually be toxic, McCain suddenly discovers that this guy is controversial and spits out the bit and turns down the endorsement.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit! That's the biggest crock of horse shit I've ever heard. We need some really cynical, but effective Obama surrogate to jump on his ass like a duck on a June bug on this one. That maneuver is almost cynical enough to have emanated from Dick Chaney's office.

Hey, she said she was a "grammar snoot," not a English snoot. Or a good writer. And it was 1972guy that called her "Literate, [and] semi-intelligent . . . ." Maybe he should have said "semi-literate" in addition to semi-intelligent.